LOGIN
התחברות או הרשמה
להמשך הרשמה ידנית – לחץ על כפתור ההרשמה, להרשמה/כניסה מהירה בעזרת חשבון רשת חברתית – לחץ על הלוגו בכותרת
עליכם להיכנס כמשתמשים רשומים בכדי להוסיף טיפים - ההרשמה/כניסה מתבצעת מכותרת האתר.
...
Cristian Medina wrote an article recently called "Test Engineering Anti-Patterns: Destroy Your Customer Satisfaction and Crater Your Quality By Using These 9 Easy Organizational Practices" Of course, it's sarcastic, and aims to highlight many problems with organizational practices that reduce software quality. The article doesn't go out of character, and only promotes the anti-patterns. However, in this interview, we discuss each point, and the corollary of what you really should do. At least, our perspectives. Here's the list of all the points discussed in the article and in this episode: Make the Test teams solely responsible for quality Require all tests to be automated before releasing Require 100% code coverage Isolate the Test organization from Development Measure the success of the process, not the product. Metrics, if rewarded, will always be gamed. Require granular projections from engineers Reward quick patching instead of solving Plan for today instead of tomorrow Special Guest: Cristian Medina.Sponsored By: Azure Pipelines: Automate your builds and deployments with pipelines so you spend less time with the nuts and bolts and more time being creative. Many organizations and open source projects are using Azure Pipelines already. Get started for free at azure.com/pipelines Support Test & CodeLinks: Test Engineering Anti-Patterns: Destroy Your Customer Satisfaction and Crater Your Quality By Using These 9 Easy Organizational Practices — The article we discuss in the show. tryexceptpass — Cris's blog
20.10.2019 | 2:00 קרא עוד...What Is A Customer? In the world of Agile, and the world of business too, we hear a lot about “customer value”. Folks seem to have some kind of handle on “value” (although not everyone can agree on that one – see my post “What Is Value” for my take, based on Goldratt and his Theory of Constraints). And for the record, we might also choose to frame the question of value within the Antimatter Principle frame, and vocabulary: Value: The degree to which folks’ needs, in aggregate, are being (or have been) met. But what about “customer”? So simple and straightforward. Do we even need to define it? I thought not, until a recent conversation on Twitter gave me pause for reconsidering. Specifically, the idea that maybe folks are talking at major cross-purposes, with significantly differing assumptions and definitions for the term. If we can’t agree on a basic term like “customer”, what chance alignment of a whole host of fundamental questions about software, products and business generally? Here’s my definition, again using the Antimatter Principle as a frame: Customer: Someone (could be either a person, or a collection of people) whose needs we’re attending to. I’m pretty sure you’ll have a different definition of customer. I’d love to hear your take. Before I close this post, here’s a different definition, informed by Crosby and his Zero-Defects (ZeeDee) approach to quality: Customer: Anyone who receives or anticipates receiving something (e.g. a good or a service) from someone else. This[…]
19.10.2019 | 5:51 קרא עוד...
בודק - עקוב אחרי בודקים אחרים בטוויטר ובבלוגים, חלוק רעיונות והתנסויות, כתוב, קבל משוב ושפר את יכולות ההתדיינות – נראה כי היתרונות בעולם הטוויטר חמקו מעיני קהילת הבודקים הישראלית אשר לרוב דווקא ממהרת לאמץ ומשתלבת בסביבות…
לבדוק או לא לבדוק - זאת השאלה לא תמיד צריך לבצע כל בדיקה עליה חשבנו או אותה תכננו, ועלינו תמיד לשקול עלות מול תועלת, שהרי ככל שעבודת הבדיקות מתארכת – כך גם יתעכב תאריך שחרור הגרסה…
